Progressive Dispensationalism

Our ministry senior theologian, Dr. Thomas S. McCall, comments
below on a letter received by one of our readers from the president
of Moody Bible Institute. Dr. McCall is very familiar with goings-on
at seminaries, having graduated from Talbot Seminary and Dallas
Theological Seminary. He is especially experienced in reading
the communications of seminary presidents. In the article on page
three, he deals with a letter from his alma mater.

ZOLA LEVITT

Damage Control at Moody - The Cover-up

By Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.

Many of our readers are as concerned as we are about getting to
the truth concerning the current changes in the teaching in our
historically sound dispensational Bible schools and seminaries.
Several have written to the various schools we have mentioned
in our newsletter, and in particular, some readers wrote to Dr.
Stowell, president of Moody Bible Institute, and received responses.
Some of the responses have been forwarded to us with the request
that we analyze them. Our analysis is as follows:

We can readily understand that Dr. Stowell would not want to
discuss publicly the internal conflicts within the faculty of
the institution he leads. However, it appears that he has engaged
here in what the politicians call "damage control" in
responding to our readers and has not been entirely forthcoming
in explaining the problems that Moody has had in recent years
concerning doctrinal issues.

To help clarify the problems, I would like to present the text
of one of Dr. Stowell's letters below, line by line, and indicate
critical areas in which pertinent facts have been overlooked:

I can assure you that we have not abandoned Israel, nor do
we see Israel as a product of man's effort. None of our faculty
members would believe that, and, in fact, we have one of the finest
Jewish studies programs in the nation.

When he says that "we do not see Israel as a product of
man's effort," he does not clarify what he is describing.
Does he mean ancient Israel or the modern nation? The Progressive
Dispensationalists, for instance, believe that ancient Israel
was a creation of God, but that the modern nation of Israel is
just a human invention and is not a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
This is a devastating viewpoint and has caused many Christians
to ignore what the Lord is doing in our time in preparation for
the Second Coming of Christ.

Moody indeed has the reputation of having "one of the
finest Jewish studies programs in the nation," but there
have been some recent problems. One of the professors who developed
the program is Dr. Louis Goldberg, who, after retiring from Moody,
moved to New York to work with Jews for Jesus. Dr. Goldberg has
written a research paper deploring the fact that some of the teachers
at Moody are now saying that many of the Messianic prophecies
in the Old Testament do not actually refer directly to the Messiah.
Dr. Goldberg correctly explains that this anti-Messianic teaching
is seriously undercutting the ministry of Jewish evangelism.

We remain fully grounded in the doctrines that we were founded
on by D.L. Moody over 110 years ago.

In saying that Moody remains "fully grounded in the doctrines
that we were founded on," President Stowell glosses over
the numerous disputes within the undergraduate faculty that have
developed during this past decade over matters such as:

(1) the original doctrinal statement
(2) a doctrinal clarification statement (which was negatively
reacted to by faculty in March 1999)
(3) two books published by faculty member Marvin Pate supporting
Progressive Dispensationalism (one of which provided a forum to
propagate an amillennial view of the book of Revelation)
(4) a divisive internal debate among the faculty over "egalitarianism"
(the teaching that men and women should have equal and identical
roles in church government)
(5) the growing presence of liberal arts professors who are untrained
in doctrinal issues causing them to be unsure regarding Moody's
distinctive dispensational theological heritage.

This last problem area is reflected in the deletion of the
school's "Here We Stand" document from an Academic Freedom
Draft in 1995 (because it would have meant the removal of several
faculty members if the doctrinal position were kept in that Freedom
Statement). Furthermore, the requirement of Moody students to
sign off on the Institute's doctrinal statement for graduation
was removed in 1998 (preferring an alignment with a blander, more
general belief in "the Christian faith" which would
allow non-premillennialists and non-pretribulationists to graduate).
President Stowell also overlooks the fact of a deterioration in
morale since 1990 (cited in a 1997 faculty study), further exacerbated
when two veteran conservative faculty members were actually fired
in 1998, individuals who publicly voiced their concerns on these
and other related doctrinal divergences.

To outsiders, then, Dr. Stowell presents one picture; but in
actuality, the situation at the Institute is sadly dysfunctional
when it comes to its undergraduate faculty! Our sources close
to the situation have fully documented all of these sad developments
in publications, faculty meeting minutes, correspondence and in
the Moody Student newspaper.

Each member of our faculty is a staunch adherent to the distinction
between Israel and the church and believes that God has a prophetically
prescribed future in store for Israel.

Dr. Stowell returns to the problem of Progressive Dispensationalism
and the strong conviction of the faculty who maintain "the
distinction between Israel and the church and believes that God
has a prophetically prescribed future in store for Israel."
These are correct statements, as far as they go, but they do not
address the issues at hand. The Progressive Dispensationalists,
who are rapidly taking over the key theological positions in the
schools, would agree with these statements. Nevertheless, they
tend to blur the distinctions between Israel and the church and
between the Church Age and the Millennium. As Dr. Walvoord and
Dr. Ryrie have clearly pointed out, the Progressive Dispensationalists'
concept that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David is a
confusion and is Biblically erroneous. Prophetic teaching has
become gradually less and less important to them and the students
they influence. And, in any case, all sincere Bible readers see
Israel's "prophetically prescribed future." The real
issue is: Does Moody Bible Institute believe in Israel as a work
of God and fulfillment of prophecy right now?

Each year our faculty members and Administrative team are required
to agree with and sign our Doctrinal Statement (which remains
the same as originally adopted in 1928 by our Board of Trustees)
which holds to a pre-tribulation rapture view and a literal millennial
reign of Christ.

Moody's 1928 doctrinal statement is very short in comparison
with those of many of the seminaries, and does not cover a number
of issues, specifically those that have to do with Progressive
Dispensationalism, Egalitarianism or Messianic prophecy. The founders
of Moody were strong traditional dispensationalists, did not believe
that men and women were to have equal functions in the church,
and were great champions of a literal interpretation of the Bible
and the Messianic prophecies concerning the first and second comings
of Christ. Should we remain silent when a significant number of
teachers at Moody are uncertain regarding these truths, even though
they dutifully sign the doctrinal statement? Similarly, an official
document approved by Moody's administration in 1979 opposing contemporary
egalitarianism is not being honored by some faculty members.

Our complaint against Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological
Seminary, Talbot Theological Seminary and other formerly strong
dispensational schools is not personal, but doctrinal and issue-oriented.
We fear that as more and more professors adopt these divergent
views, the further from the Scriptures, from evangelism, and from
a true Christian relationship with Israel the graduates of these
schools will move. We thank the Lord for the schools and teachers
that are remaining faithful to the Word.

Editorial

Damage Control at Dallas - The Brush-off

By Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.

When I was in the doctoral program at Dallas Seminary, the
leading dispensational graduate schools lived and breathed Biblical
and doctrinal issues. Presidents and professors were famous for
defending the doctrines concerning the Bible, Christ, the Church,
Israel, and prophecy. Men like Dr. Chafer, Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Feinberg,
Dr. Sweeting, Dr. Pentecost and others, some of whom I was honored
to know as my professors, would labor long to make sure that faculty,
students and public alike understood the great doctrinal challenges
of the day and the Biblical responses to them. Dispensationalism,
the Rapture, the Second Coming of Christ and the restoration of
Israel were not things to be ashamed of, but to be defended eagerly
and vociferously against the teachings of liberalism, amillennialism
and other deviations from the truth. Doctrinal statements were
not museum pieces to be brought out when some distraught pastor
or supporter raised questions, but were living documents hammered
out in the heat of Biblical discourse and godly argumentation.

It seems that those days are largely behind us. Try writing
a serious inquiry about doctrinal problems to the formerly strong
dispensational seminaries today. Instead of receiving a correspondingly
serious response to the issues raised, one is likely to get a
polite brush-off and an attack against anyone who would dare to
question the changes in the teaching taking place. Take the case
of one of our readers who was concerned about the issues raised
in our newsletter and wrote to the President of Dallas Theological
Seminary. He received the following response, which he forwarded
to us:

Thank you for your letter dated February 28. Dr. Swindoll has
asked me to respond. Since you asked four rather lengthy questions
which would take much time to answer, I have included the DTS
doctrinal statement which will answer the questions.

I hope you are not buying into the distortions that Zola Levitt
has raised. We are not sure why he has published these issues
in his newsletter without following the Matthew 18 principle and
coming to discuss them with us first.

Warmly,

Paul E. Pettit
Asst. to the President

First of all, it is clear that doctrinal matters now are to
be handled by an assistant. The assistant chosen to defend the
position of the Seminary to the public, Rev. Pettit, received
his Th.M. from DTS in 1996. Secondly, even assistants cannot spare
the time to deal cogently with the issues raised. Instead, the
reader is simply sent a copy of the doctrinal statement as a substitute
for dealing with the questions. This might be alright if the professors
in the classrooms were teaching what is in the doctrinal statement,
which is a very fine doctrinal statement, indeed. The problem
is that many of the key theological professors are teaching views
that a number of Biblical scholars consider at variance to the
doctrinal statement. As we have explained in previous newsletters,
Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Ryrie and many others show conclusively that
the key teaching of Progressive Dispensationalism, that Christ
is currently seated on the throne of David in Heaven, is Biblically
erroneous and leads to considerable eschatological confusion.
Our conviction is that it is so confusing that it is in direct
violation of the DTS doctrinal statement which proclaims that
the dispensations of the church age and the millennium are not
to be confused or intermingled:

We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life
are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz.,
the dispensation of the Mosaic law, the present dispensation of
grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom.
We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled
or confused, as they are chronologically successive.

It is beyond us how anyone who teaches Progressive Dispensationalism
can honestly sign this doctrinal statement, which all DTS professors
are required to do every year. Certainly, these questions deserve
a reasoned answer, not a dismissive one.

Secondly, Rev. Pettit accuses Zola of distorting the position
of DTS and of failing to follow the principles of Matthew 18 in
not coming to him first before writing the articles. How have
we distorted the position of the Seminary? Leading professors
there have written books promoting the divergent views of Progressive
Dispensationalism, indicating that the earlier views of the leaders
of the Seminary were defective, or not progressive enough. Who
is doing the distorting?

We are merely pointing out to the general Christian public
what is well known throughout the conservative theological community.
The assistant is attempting to state that the professors are all
teaching what is in the doctrinal statement, but we are convinced
that dominant professors are deviating from it in critical areas.
There is, therefore, not only a doctrinal problem, but one of
integrity as well. It really is a distortion to teach one thing
in the classrooms and present something else to the supporting
public.

Concerning Matthew 18, the assistant appears to think we
have raised these objections in a vacuum. Zola and I met on
the Seminary campus with a number of the leaders of the administration,
faculty and board of directors of DTS several years ago, expressing
our concerns about Progressive Dispensationalism, a bias against
modern Israel and other matters. This was when the doctrine of
Progressive Dispensationalism first appeared on the theological
radar screen. Since then, I have submitted an article to the Seminary
journal, Bibliotheca Sacra, endeavoring to refute these changes
in the Seminary position. Zola also has spoken at the Seminary
Chapel, urging the students and faculty to support the Biblical
reality of the modern state of Israel as a harbinger of the Second
Coming of Christ. We are in regular communication with Dr. Walvoord,
the Chancellor, who recently wrote to Zola and me a cogent letter
defending the Seminary, but agreeing with us that Progressive
Dispensationalism is Biblically erroneous. In any case, I have
personally asked repeatedly to meet with Dr. Swindoll and have
received no reply.

The Seminary is fully aware of the firestorm in theological
circles that has been caused by these new views. Whole movements
have arisen as a result, such as the Pre-Trib Study Group, because
prophecy is so uninteresting to many of the current professors
and graduates of the formerly strong dispensational seminaries.
Whole new seminaries, such as Tyndale Seminary in Fort Worth,
have been formed, claiming to be "Old Dallas," in contrast
with the newer views at DTS. It is only the supporting Christian
public that is largely unaware of what is going on. When we attempt
to inform our readers of these realities, our positions and views
are not attacked, but we ourselves. We are considered less than
honorable when we raise questions about the doctrines that are
being spread wholesale in the classrooms of our once fine dispensational
schools and seminaries.

We think it is high time for a serious, dispassionate public
discourse to take place concerning these important matters. It
may yet be possible for our seminaries and Bible schools to return
to their role as defenders of the great dispensational truths,
and "the Bible as it is for men as they are."

Webmaster:
Why is Zola so afraid of Progressive Dispensationalism? Why doesn't
he sit down and try to understand it instead of attacking it and
making himself look rather foolish? In the March newsletter he
says, "the dispensations are progressive... I guess that's
why they call it Progressive Dispensationalism." Huh? Is
that the best he could come up with in his research? Does he know
this topic is being seriously debated in the leading theological
seminaries? Thanks!

Dear Dr. Pettit:
I'm not afraid of Progressive Dispensationalism; I'm afraid of
students ignorant of End Times prophecy and Israel heading our
churches someday. I'm afraid of shrewd administrators resting
on past laurels and virtually operating businesses. I'm afraid
of seminaries expanding enrollments only to use up millions of
dollars to build buildings and establish banks. And it saddens
me greatly that "this topic is being seriously debated in
the leading theological seminaries." Believe me, I understand
your errors perfectly and so do my viewers and readers. Do you
ever stop for a moment and ask yourself, "What are we really
doing to the Christian community when we compromise like this
on doctrine?"
- Zola

...I suspect I know the source of your concern and would just
say that his representation of both Moody and Dallas is without
factual basis and even his characterizations of various theological
positions are designed to serve his personal intent rather than
any elaboration of the truth

To: Dr. Whaley, How many personal attacks do I have to put
up with from those who can't defend what they teach? - Zola

Enclosed is a very simple letter asking President Swindoll
their position on Israel and Progressive Dispensationalism. I
was disheartened to read in your February newsletter about what
this seminary holds to. I love reading your newsletters and watching
your program, while also listening to John Hagee and Chuck Swindoll
on the radio. . .

. . . It will be interesting to see if I get a response from
Dallas Seminary in regards to my questions. If I do, I will forward
it on to you.

May the Lord continue to bless your ministry, and thank you
for all you do, Zola. Enclosed is a love gift for your ministry.
In the meantime, I am praying for the peace of Jerusalem.

In His service, - K.E.

Dear K.E.,

I wouldn't count on much of a response from Dallas Seminary,
though your letter was very well worded and your questions directly
to the point. But please see the "reply" (on page 3)
another of our viewers received from Paul Pettit (assistant to
the president) of that seminary. Zola

Dear Mark,
[Zola's son and general manager of Zola Levitt Ministries ]

I just wanted you to know that the announcement you ran in
the February edition of your Levitt Letter has produced fabulous
results. Boxes of books and magazines are coming in almost daily,
even from Alaska. Your ministry has some of the most compassionate
people on earth. What a joy it is for me to write each one a personal
letter and tell them how much we appreciate their giving time
and money so our inmates can be kept occupied. I feel that many
disturbances have been avoided because we have good reading material
available.

Thank you again for supporting our ministry. The Lord certainly
has been good to provide our needs at critical times.

How great God is! Recently I got handed your newsletter. It
just happened to cover Progressive Dispensationalism. I have had
questions nagging in the back of my mind about that for years.
Your letter covered the topic very well. Thank you.

Please put me on your mailing list. Thank you! In Christ,

C.S.B.

Birds of a feather

by ZOLA LEVITT

We have received requests to define Progressive Dispensationalism,
the doctrine we have criticized at such well-respected seminaries
as Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary. Our
staff theologian, Todd Baker, has expertly discussed the flaw
in that doctrine in his article on page 8. Todd has noted that
the Progressive Dispensationalists purposely confuse the throne
of God in heaven with the throne of David. God's throne in heaven
is obviously not an earthly place. We see it in Revelation, and
it is spoken of elsewhere in Scripture. David's throne was certainly
earthly and will be in the Kingdom to come. By saying they are
the same throne, the Progressive Dispensationalists effectively
cut Israel out of the prophetic picture and accelerate a Kingdom
event-Jesus literally sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem-to
the present day.

According to the Progressive Dispensationalists, Jesus is now
sitting on the throne of David in heaven, and we are enjoying
the beginning of the Kingdom at this point. It doesn't take a
deep theologian to see the flaw in this reasoning.

While the following article clarifies all of those issues with
the relevant Scriptures, I am concerned mainly with the effort,
however unconscious, to shut out Israel and the Chosen People
from the Kingdom to come. This is a completely wasted exercise
on the part of those who are, to say it kindly, not particularly
preferential to those whom God loves, the Jews. For Moody Bible
Institute, Dallas Seminary, and any number of other fine Bible
schools who formerly supported Israel and praised the Chosen People
to have turned to an error of this magnitude is shocking. The
logical end of this doctrine, out-and-out Replacement Theology,
would be the complete dispossession of those whom God chose and
the Land He promised from Christian thinking. This simply must
not happen.

Zola

Editorial

The Doctrine of Progressive Dispensationalism

By Todd Baker Th.M.

Today there is a growing movement within dispensational theology
that is gaining influence among some leading dispensational seminaries
and churches across the land. It is called "Progressive Dispensationalism."
Traditional dispensationalism has always maintained a clear distinction
between Israel and the Church, and that the Messianic Kingdom,
of which the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16; Ps. 89) is a main
feature, still is a future earthly event that will occur when
Christ returns to Jerusalem to reign over the earth for 1,000
years (Rev. 19:11 - 20:1-6).

However, proponents of Progressive Dispensationalism have changed
some of this with their interpretation of Acts 2 (particularly
verses 30-36). They teach from Acts 2:30 that the throne of God
in heaven where Jesus now sits is the throne of David. Hence,
Jesus is currently reigning from David's throne in heaven, and
the Messianic Kingdom is now inaugurated and is beginning to be
fulfilled! What was once clearly a future event is now, somehow,
a present reality. This is a disturbing departure from a normal
literal understanding of Bible prophecy that views the Throne
of David as an earthly throne Christ will sit on and reign from
Jerusalem when He returns (Is. 2:1-5; Ezk. 43:1-7).

To believe this is now being "progressively" fulfilled
blurs the distinction between Israel and the Church and minimizes
the prophetic importance and position of modern-day Israel. The
context of Acts 2 does not teach that Jesus is now reigning on
the throne of David. Rather, the main point of Peter's sermon
is that God has demonstrated the man Jesus, who was crucified
by the Jewish leaders, to be "both Lord and Christ"
by the following three events in Acts 2: (1) By the resurrection
v. 31; (2) By the exaltation at God's right hand v. 33; (3) By
sending the Holy Spirit of promise v. 33. The gist of Acts 2:30-36
is Christ's resurrection and exaltation at the right hand of God
on the heavenly throne that guarantees His future reign on the
earthly Davidic thrones as David's Lord and greater descendant.

Nowhere in Acts or, for that matter, in the entire Bible does
one find the earthly throne of David and the heavenly throne of
God explicitly identified as ever being the same.

They are always distinct and different in Scripture. In the
book of Acts, it is even more evident that Christ is not presently
reigning on the throne of David as Progressive Dispensationalism
claims. Luke opens Acts with Christ's post-resurrection ministry
to the disciples for forty days. During that time, Jesus spoke
to them "of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God"
(Acts 1:3). Surely, in all that time, if Jesus were to shortly
reign on the throne of David in heaven, He would have plainly
told them of this important change and transference of David's
throne from earth to heaven when they asked Him, "Lord, are
you at this time going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?"
(Acts 1:6). Christ did not reply, "You are mistaken about
this Jewish misconception of an earthly throne and Kingdom in
Israel. The throne of David has been transferred to the throne
of God in heaven where I will ascend and shortly reign from."

Instead, Jesus told the disciples that God the Father has appointed
the time and season in the future when the Davidic Kingdom will
be established in Israel (Acts 1:7). In the meantime, they were
to go out and preach the Gospel in all the world, starting in
Jerusalem (Acts 1:8). The Davidic rule and Kingdom did not begin
when the Lord ascended to heaven, or He would have obviously told
them so when questioned about the time and season for the establishment
of the Kingdom in Israel. If Jesus is currently reigning on David's
throne in heaven, then Acts 15:16-18 contradicts this novel idea
of Progressive Dispensationalism. The passage in Acts 15 deals
with the issue of Gentile salvation and whether or not Gentiles
must be circumcised and observe the Mosaic law to become Christians.
James answers for the group at the Jerusalem Council by saying
the calling out of Gentile believers is in keeping with the future
promise of a Davidic Kingdom in Israel. Once the present age ends
after the taking out of a Gentile body of believers "for
His name" (a distinct characteristic and divine work of the
present age), Christ will return to rebuild and restore "the
tabernacle of David." The phrase "Tabernacle of David"
is a descriptive synonym of the Davidic throne and earthly Kingdom
that has long been in ruins (Acts 15:16). It still remains this
way during the present age and awaits the final restoration at
the return of Christ to earth. If Christ were reigning on the
throne of David in heaven at this time, why then did James say
the Davidic monarchy was still in ruins? The only reasonable and
clear answer is that Jesus has yet to return to earth to repair
and rebuild it when He comes to reign on an earthly throne of
David in Jerusalem, not heaven.

Clearly, in the book of Acts, the Jewish disciples, along with
the Jewish Church of Jerusalem, were looking forward to a future,
earthly, literal Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Israel to be ruled
over by the Messiah Jesus. It was not spiritualized and transferred
to heaven where Christ presently is, contrary to the belief of
Progressive Dispensationalism. Carried to its logical conclusion,
Progressive Dispensationalism could lead to saying the Church
is Israel followed by a denial of the Jewish people's status as
God's Chosen People and the vital role Israel will play in the
future Davidic Kingdom to come. Christ is King over the created
universe and His Church. He will be an earthly King over a redeemed
Israel as their Davidic ruler on David's earthly throne when He
returns to earth. Therefore, ...

Christ's rule from the throne of David totally awaits a
future fulfillment currently not realized now.